Mike Brown having a good idea?

[bengalboomer7]

This was just a little blurb from porfootballtalk.com. Apologies if already posted(I hope not, you'd think a mod would look for this stuff) Mike Brown getting some props

5. Roll Out The Loyalty Clause.

A few years back, the Bengals kicked up a big fuss by insisting on the inclusion of a so-called "loyalty clause" in the contract of receiver Carl Pickens. The provision was challenged by the union in 2000, but as of 2005 it still remains part of the team's written agreements.

Not many (apparently not any) of the other NFL teams have tried to slip this type of language into player contracts -- possibly because other teams are loathe to acknowledge that Bengals president Mike Brown's chromed-covered dome might have actually hatched a good idea.

We think it's time for teams to consider using the loyalty clause or similar devices, especially in the wake of the weekly radio appearances of Eagles receiver Terrell Owens on 790-AM in Miami. For each and every Friday throughout the season, Owens will have an opportunity to say on the air something that perhaps he shouldn't say about his team or his teammates.

This past week, Owens talked about his decision to auction off his NFC championship ring, explaining that he was miffed by statements from some of this teammates that the Eagles could get back to the Super Bowl without him. This coming week, who knows what wild hair will crawl up T.O.'s rear end?

If Owens had signed a contract containing a loyalty clause, he might be thinking twice about what he says -- and/or thinking twice about even doing the radio spots.

Given the millions of dollars that some of these players make every year, we don't think it's unreasonable to expect the guys who are getting this money to demonstrate their gratitude by keeping their mouths shut regarding items that might make the team or other players in the organization look bad.

[Stripes]

Given the millions of dollars that some of these players make every year, we don't think it's unreasonable to expect the guys who are getting this money to demonstrate their gratitude by keeping their mouths shut regarding items that might make the team or other players in the organization look bad.

Well said, and agreed! I have a feeling this wouldn't create a similar buzz with us as it did with Carl Pickens. Success has a way of keeping the media in the postive.

[HoosierCat]

No big surprise that Florio is a fan of the loyalty clause. Like Mikey, he's a lawyer, and a lawyer's first and last instinct is to get a signature on every piece of paper they can. It's what they do.

The trouble with the loyalty clause was never that Mikey -- or any other owner -- didn't deserve the protection, but with Mikey's laughable claim that the clause would improve the team.

As for the example of T.O., the Eagles have no one to blame but themselves. When teams sign players with a history of trouble, whether it's domestic violence or drugs or shooting off their mouths or whatever, they typically insert clauses that allow them to recoup money if the guy keeps acting up. That was true before Mikey's loyalty clause and is still true today; Mikey's "innovation" was simply making his clause a standard part of the signing bonus agreement, regardless of whether or not there had been any prior incidents. When the Eagles went after Owens, there were plenty of calls for them to cover their butts with some kind of loyalty clause.

[thefrazz]

TO did have something in his contract that was brought up earlier this season in reguards to the contract dispute.

It was something about a "distraction clause" that listed that he was not to be a distraction to the team...and he signed it. However, that would be like having Saddam Hussain sign a contract saying he would not opress (sp) anyone ever again. *shrug*

I don't believe he has been fined by the team...or ever will be, but it is compairable to the "Loyalty Clause". IMO

[HoosierCat]

Could be. The Eagles would have been stupid not to have inserted something, given Owens' history. But the question then becomes...when do you invoke such a clause? Once you do, you can kiss that player goodbye -- and your reason for invoking it better be really, really, really good or you risk alarming current players and potential free agents.

In the case of T.O., I get the impression they could probably do it. He's been such an a** that I don't think there would be a great deal of backlash. But that only points up how completely beyond the pale a player's antics have to get before a team can invoke such a "nuclear" option. And when it reaches that point they could file and likely win a grievance againt the player anyhow (see Ricky Williams) so the clause becomes redundant.

[derekshank]

Well, it might not be in his contract, but the team has let T.O. know that he is on a short leash. They gave him a list of things he can't do or say, or they will suspend him, and he will not get is money. Doesn't seem that you need this kind of language in a specific contract in order to apply it to a certain player.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

I think this is all about how Mike Brown ultimately hates guaranteed signing bonuses and Pumpkie the lawyer found a way to limit the extent of the guarantee via the loyalty clause, and at the same time save himself from future public relations nightmares. The worst pro franchise for over a decade had serious image problems to begin with.

As long as it's clearly defined in specific language like any good law or official work place rule, then I am ok with it, players shouldn't go whacky to the media and hurt their employer, get cut or traded as a result, and leave that employer paying out huge sums of money to him for years. That's just stupid.

[Columbusbengal]

The trouble with the loyalty clause was never that Mikey -- or any other owner -- didn't deserve the protection, but with Mikey's laughable claim that the clause would improve the team.

The best thing about the Bengals under Katy and Marvin is that they don't want anyone on the team who would even need a loyalty clause. Therefore, no player has really put up any argument about signing one.

[HoosierCat]

I think this is all about how Mike Brown ultimately hates guaranteed signing bonuses and Pumpkie the lawyer found a way to limit the extent of the guarantee via the loyalty clause, and at the same time save himself from future public relations nightmares. The worst pro franchise for over a decade had serious image problems to begin with.

Well, Mikey expressed his thoughts quite clearly way back when…

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2000/07/18/ben..._clause_is.html

…and his arguments about the signing bonus essentially being an advance and the challenges a player who "talks his way off the team" present in cap terms are quite valid. The flaw in Mikey's reasoning comes here:

Where it can break down is with a player who, though under a long-term contract, believes he is underpaid and wants to test his value in the free-agent marketplace. He could have signed his contract several years ago that, while good at the time, now pays less than others at his position are receiving. Or he could have received a large up-front signing bonus, so that what he receives each year is relatively rather modest — and certainly less than his compensation would be if he could enter into a new deal with a new signing bonus.

Under the current system, that player can undertake a campaign to attack and vilify teammates, coaches, organization and community.

In other words, players who resort to Pickens-like tactics are just trying to get out of their contract so they can get more money elsewhere. But note that Pick wasn't after the money; in fact, he'd just signed a big new deal, and never got anywhere near that after he left.

What Mikey wouldn't or couldn't see was that such complaints by players could be valid. He assumes they are just lies told to break a contract, lies which destroy the "team cohesiveness" he details in the second paragraph of his editorial:

Let me start with what I trust no one will dispute: the relationship between team cohesiveness and team performance. For as long as team sports have been played, it has been demonstrated that teams that bond well perform well on the field. Players who openly criticize their teammates and coaches undermine the team's ability to win games. The same is true with organizations everywhere.

So in Mikey's mind, the problem was this:

Player wants more $$$ ----> Player starts mouthing off ----> team cohesiveness falls ----> team loses more games.

Trouble was, while that example may work in today's case of Terrel Owens, that wasn’t the way it was in Cincy. Instead it was:

Management hired incompetent coaches and made bad draft choices ----> team starts losing regularly ----> team cohesiveness falls, locker room cancers emerge ----> cancers start mouthing off.

In the end, the loyalty clause attacked a symptom, not the problem, which is why it did absolutely nothing to improve team cohesiveness and produce more wins. Proof? Look what happened when they finally addressed the true root of the problem, bad coaching and drafting.

[HairOnFire]

Not many (apparently not any) of the other NFL teams have tried to slip this type of language into player contracts -- possibly because other teams are loathe to acknowledge that Bengals president Mike Brown's chromed-covered dome might have actually hatched a good idea.

This is inaccurate. In the years following the introduction of the Loyalty Clause several teams have been noted for having included portions of the contract language in their deals. It's never become a standard boilerplate provision, as many in the media once predicted, but other teams have seen fit to use the Bengals example as a starting point in more than a half dozen examples. They drop stuff they don't like or have lawyers write their own language, but the clause hasn't been totally ignored.

Joisey and I always argue with our stealthy knives over this issue, and it's fair to say that our positions are polar opposites. However, it should be noted that Mike Brown has never used...or threatened to use...the clause as a way to limit normal player criticism or typical negotiating tactics from veterans seeking more money. Never.

The only negative associated with the clause has been the number of times that rookies have been held out as agents engaged in a pointless dog and pony show. And they do this largely because the Loyalty Clause represents one way where the Bengals do business differently that most teams.

My response? Tough. Pound sand up your pipe. Go elsewhere for war stories you can tell your agent buddies when you meet for coffee in Hell. Your job is to get a deal for your client with the team that drafted him. So get it done. Because the only way the Loyalty Clause threatens your client is if he wages a media war with the team ala Carl Pickens....a team cancer who pocketed 8 million bucks for one seasons work while demonstrating how little he knew about being a professional.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

In the end, the loyalty clause attacked a symptom, not the problem, which is why it did absolutely nothing to improve team cohesiveness and produce more wins. Proof? Look what happened when they finally addressed the true root of the problem, bad coaching and drafting.

Don't disagree there. But I also think what Brown says in his quote about it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Dillon sure got a free pass here for several years despite numerous episodes of such behavior. He just didn't come out and criticize his coach directly. If Brown cared so much about team cohesiveness, he wouldn't have tolerated that as long as he did. Instead Marvin appeared to at an appropriate time.

Not arguing anyone's point, just think that the idea of it, is fine, if there's nothing else stopping a player from going to the press with their personal grievances against an employer, and still getting paid for it, now and into the future. Giving back an otherwise guaranteed bonus in-full is an appropriate settlement I think in those cases, if it's a clearly and specifically defined agreement.

It's up to the individual team to decide to take the risk or not I suppose. The Bengals' were so pathetic at the time, they felt the need to create/enforce it to protect their investments and public image. Which we've all known for years is embarrassing.

[HoosierCat]

Joisey and I always argue with our stealthy knives over this issue, and it's fair to say that our positions are polar opposites. However, it should be noted that Mike Brown has never used...or threatened to use...the clause as a way to limit normal player criticism or typical negotiating tactics from veterans seeking more money. Never.

Very true. But then again, it was never meant to be so used. The purpose was to provide a contractual mechanism by which the team could recover signing bonus money after a player had mouthed off to such an extent that his return was impossible.

At the time, I think there was a legitimate need for such a mechanism. The question of the precise nature of the signing bonus was not settled. Was it, as Mikey claimed, an advance on salary, or was it, as the NFLPA argued in opposing the clause, a bonus for signing your name on a piece of paper? In the end, it was Mikey's view that won out, and in subsequent years we have seen several team act to recoup that "signing advance" even without a specific contractual mechanism.

In short, while the clause hasn't become standard throughout the league, its view of the signing bonus has become accepted precedent in league rulings; the spirit has been incorporated, if not the letter. It sems to me a stupid thing for either side, player or management, to be arguing over any longer.

[HoosierCat]

Dillon sure got a free pass here for several years despite numerous episodes of such behavior. He just didn't come out and criticize his coach directly. If Brown cared so much about team cohesiveness, he wouldn't have tolerated that as long as he did. Instead Marvin appeared to at an appropriate time.

There are certainly many instances Mikey could have slammed CD...but like I said it's a weapon of last resort. Especially considering how crucial Dillon was to the few wins we did get during those days, it's hard to imagine any circumstances short of CD beating the crap out of Mikey in the pressbox that would have resulted in the clause being invoked.

I think Mikey did (and does) care about team cohesiveness a great deal, but I think that for a long time he primarily blamed the players (who, it must be said, deserve a share of the blame). I think that the idea that Carl Pickens might have been correct in his assessment of Coslet as head coach was not even thinkable by Mikey, at least at the time. Wasn't Coslet a great OC, one who guided the Bengals offense to the big game? Didn't he coach in the biggest of all market, NY? Wasn't he a long and loyal friend of Mikey? So who was this Pickens a**hole to shoot off his mouth? What the eff did he know?

It took not only a complete team collapse but, if reports are true, his own daughter's tears over being ridiculed for the team's performance to finally crack that worldview. And you have to give Mikey a huge amount of credit for finally taking that step, for hiring Marvin, for giving him more control than anyone since his father...for essentially giving up. In arguments Hair and I used to have a long time ago, Hair declared that Mike Brown would never fire himself. And I agreed. But effectively, he has, proving both of us wrong. Control in the front office is passing to his kid, and on the field to Marvin Lewis.

And as a result, if things keep going like they have so far this year, Mikey's willingness to let go may bring him the grand prize. And wouldn't that be a kick?

[HairOnFire]

In short, while the clause hasn't become standard throughout the league, its view of the signing bonus has become accepted precedent in league rulings; the spirit has been incorporated, if not the letter. It sems to me a stupid thing for either side, player or management, to be arguing over any longer.

Oh, I agree completely. The issue was decided in Mikey's favor long ago, and any agent that attempts to revisit the matter is just grandstanding. That said, it's become an accepted standard clause in all Bengal contracts and represents an extra line of defense. So I see absolutely no reason for the Bengals to drop the clause from future contracts.

[Benzoo]

Great topic, and great discussion.

[HairOnFire]

And you have to give Mikey a huge amount of credit for finally taking that step, for hiring Marvin, for giving him more control than anyone since his father...for essentially giving up. In arguments Hair and I used to have a long time ago, Hair declared that Mike Brown would never fire himself. And I agreed. But effectively, he has, proving both of us wrong. Control in the front office is passing to his kid, and on the field to Marvin Lewis.

And as a result, if things keep going like they have so far this year, Mikey's willingness to let go may bring him the grand prize. And wouldn't that be a kick?

Yeah, I can agree with that to a point. Mikey essentially fired himself from the GM role he filled, but whose title he never accepted. And while the Bengals still don't have a true GM the responsibilities associated with that job are now shared by several people...all of whom are qualified within their own areas of expertise. Marvin. Tobin. Cooper. The junior Browns. Roles are defined. Football people run the team. Lawyers and bean counters run the business. Meanwhile, Mike continues to keep his hand in both areas of team operations in the capacity of team president, corner office guy, and most high and mighty muckity muck. And when you think about it every team has one of those. In short, football qualifications dubious...checkbook open....influence limited.

Yeah, I think I can see it off in the misty distance. Mike Brown holding up the Lombardi trophy. Marvin crying his eyes out. And you and I drunk on our butts on opposite coasts.

[HoosierCat]

Oh, I agree completely. The issue was decided in Mikey's favor long ago, and any agent that attempts to revisit the matter is just grandstanding. That said, it's become an accepted standard clause in all Bengal contracts and represents an extra line of defense. So I see absolutely no reason for the Bengals to drop the clause from future contracts.

I doubt it disappears any time soon, either. The Bengals way of doing business adapts only slowly. But IMHO they'll eventually conclude that it isn't worth the fuss any longer.

But whether the clause is around or not, I'm just glad that the team has moved beyond such non-solutions to its problems and gotten back on track by addressing the real issues, like coaching competence and scouting support. That pays off, as we've seen, in wins -- and when you are winning the world will beat a path to your door, loyalty clauses or no.

Yeah, I think I can see it off in the misty distance. Mike Brown holding up the Lombardi trophy. Marvin crying his eyes out. And you and I drunk on our butts on opposite coasts.

Exactly.

[bengalboomer7]

I thought this might be a good topic. I just found it interesting that with all the trouble we seem to have with this loyalty clause, that's it's funny to see Mikey get credit for something. Most teams now have some kind of protective language in their contracts, like the Ricky Willimas mess, the Kellen Winslow messs, and now, the T.O. mess. But Mikey put this on the map, mainly because his team sucked ass for years, and he wanted to protect himself and his business first and foremost(probably his daddy's name too)

Now, with premadonna players the way they are, this fits perfect in any NFL contract.

What I like is Marvin's 100% offseason attendance rule, or whatever exactly that is. That helps build Mikey's coveted "team cohesiveness" and keeps guys doing their jobs,, better preparing him for the real deal. I don't know if it's for offseason, but with all the players you see skipping them, it's nice to know I can think of only one Bengal that did(Duane Clemons) and he's not important right now anyways. I also wonder is missing all those workouts had something to do with him failing a piss test. Sitting on his ass smoking the cheeba or drinking some fire water(or injecting steriods to keep up) instead of working his fat ass out.